1986- Smokeless Tobacco (snuff and chewing tobacco)

February 22, 1986

Lloyd Novick, M.O.
Director
Arizona Department oF Health Services 1740 W. Adams
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Dear Or. Novick:

Attached is a copy oF the Resolution regarding smokeless tobacco which was voted upon and passed at our February 21, 1986 Board oF Directors meeting.

Please let the Association know whenever a bill is intro­duced regarding this, so that we may take appropriate action.

Sincerely,
Phyllis Primas, A.N., Ph.D.
President

ARIZONA PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION
February 1986

SUBJECT: Smokeless Tobacco (Snuff and Chewing Tobacco)

WHEREAS, some 22 million people (one in every 12-15 Americans) use smokeless tobacco and its use has grown 11% per year since 1974; and

WHEREAS, epidemiological studies have found a relationship between use of smokeless tobacco products and oral cancer; and

WHEREAS, an estimated 27,000 inqividuals in the United States are afflicted with oral cancer each year that results in an estimated 9,200 deaths; and

WHEREAS, smokeless tobacco contains nicotine which is a dependence­ producing drug; and

WHEREAS, smokeless tobacco contributes to dental problems such as re­ ceding gums, abrasion of teeth, discolored teeth, and possible dental decay, and also decreases taste sensitivity and limits sense of smell; and

WHEREAS, the use of smokeless tobacco is rapidly increasing, especially among male high school and college students; and

WHERAS, the tobacco industry relies heavily on using well known athletes and entertainers to advertise for the sale of smokeless tobacco; and

WHEREAS, the Arizona Public Health Association considers prevention and education related to the use of tobacco a priority;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Arizona Public Health Association go on record in support of efforts to reduce use of smoking products to include smokeless products; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Arizona Public Health Association re­ quests the Surgeon General to warn the American public on hazards associated with use of smokeless tobacco, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Arizona Public Health Association requests the U.S. Olympic Committee to drop smokeless tobacco products as official sponsors; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Arizona make sales and taxing of smoke­ less products consistent with smoking products; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NIH/NCI increase efforts to investigate the relationship between smokeless products and oral cancer, and factors that contribute to their use; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Arizona be encouraged to pass laws prohibiting the sale of any tobacco products to minors; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Arizona Public Health Association work with all other agencies and organizations which share this common concern which can assist in accomplishing these goals.

PASSED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
February 21, 1986

Patricia Zurick Executive Secretary
107~1986_(1)Smokeless tobacco (tobacco, education, legislation) (1)

1987- Student Loan Program

Arizona Public Health Association Annual Meeting
September 17, 1987
STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM

WHEREAS:the Arizona State Legislature authorized the Arizona Medical Student Loan Program in 1977 to address the health manpower shortage problem,

WHEREAS: there is a continued need for adequate.health professionals in many rural and urban undersered areas of Arizona, ·

WHEREAS:there is evidence that medical students from a rural background are 2 to 3 times as likely to practice in a rural area than are their classmates from other backgrounds,

WHEREAS: minority health professional development has been shown to be a cost-effective mechanism of addressing the problem of geographic maldistribution of health professionals, especially for urban areas,

WHEREAS: there continues to be a dramatic decline in Federal support for health manpower programs coupled with an elimination of incentives for health professionals to locate in manpower shortage areas,

Now, therefore, the Arizona Public Health Association urges review of the Arizona Student Loan Program to strengthen the recipient selection and practice location process, to enhance coordination with other state organizations in primary care, and to expand the scope of the program to include nurses, nurse practitioners, and other health professionals.

Presented to the Membership at the 1987 Annual Meeting, 9/16/87

109~1987_(1)Student loan program (PH infrastructure, nursing, rural)

1987-Arizona Area Health Education Centers

Arizona Public Health Association Annual Meeting
September 17, 1987
ARIZONA AREA HEALTH EDUCATION CENTERS

87-3

WHEREAS, Arizona’s rural and urban inner city areas suffer from higher unemployment rates, higher percentages of people living in poverty, lower educational attainment, overcrowded housing, higher percentage of ethnic minorities and the elderly, and
Arizona suffers from a significant maldistribution of health manpower in these areas, and

WHEREAS, The Arizona Legislature has previously acknowledged the State’s unmet health care needs and access problems, and
The Federal government has acknowledged the gravity of the problem of maldistribution of health care professionals in Arizona, and has funded for a limited time the establishment of Area Health Education Centers (AHECs), and

WHEREAS, The Arizona Area Health Education Center (AzAHEC) Program is designed to reduce the maldistribution of health care professionals by providing a learning resource system in underserved areas for
the various health professionals, including dentistry medicine, nursing, pharmacy, health education.

THEREFORE: social work, health service administration, medical social sciences, physical therapy, allied
health, dental hygiene and nutrition, and

Over 30 states now have AHECs, many with state financial support, The Arizona Public Health Association believes that the AzAHEC Program is meeting an urgent state need and encourages the Arizona State Legislature to provide financial support to expand and continue this program in Arizona.

Accepted by Board of Directors 8-21-87, to be presented to the membership for approval at the next Annual Meeting.

Presented to the Membership at the 1987 Annual Meeting, 9/16/87
APPROVE0:£242

110~1987_(1) AZ area health education centers (education, disparity, legislation)

1987- Title X Proposed Regulations

Proposed Regulations for Title X

1. Prohibits counseling and referrals of any pregnant client·. Permits providing a list of services for prenatal care, delivery and social services.

2. Prohibits Title X funds to agencies that .”encourage, promote or advocate abortion as a method of family planning” even with their own money.

3. Requires separate family planning and abortion facilities (e.g., records, personnel, entrances, addresses, phones, stationery, etc.).

This is not an abortion issue. Title X clinics do not now encourage or promote abortions by giving-non-directive options counseling with federal funds.

The issues are
1. Clinics will be left liable for malpractice suits if they do not follow informed consent procedures.

2. This interferes with the doctor/patient privilege and the doctor’s obligation to the patient.

3. This denies many poor women information about their medical care. For many women a family planning clinic is their first entry into the health care system.

* Publicly funded medical providers may not give medically indicated information to poor women, even if they ask for it.

* Publicly funded health agencies may not counsel a woman with an ectopic pregnancy about what this means to her medically.

* Publicly funded health agencies may not have a copy of the Yellow Pages on the premises.

* Publicly funded health agencies must ignore 17 years of proper, legal, ethical, medical care that have been supported by both parties in Congress and by the public

DBBS is asking for comments on proposed regulations for Title X which would· have these effects by November 2, 1987.

Please send comments to:
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs Department of Health and Human Services PO Box 23993, L’Enfant Plaza Washington, D.C. 20026-3993

This is not an abortion issue. It is an issue of provision of proper medical information. This is not lobbying. It is responding to a request for public comment.

Alan
Guttmacher
Institute
A Corporation for Research, Policy Analysis and Public Education
2010 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, O.C. 20036
Telephone 202 296-4012

Introduction

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON

THE ADMINISTRATION’S PROPOSED NEW REGULATIONS TO THE TITLE X FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM

On September 1, 1987, the Public Health Service published a notice in the Federal Register of its intent to amend the regulations for the Title X family planning program to reflect changes in the program mandated by Presi­dent Reagan in a speech before antiabortion leaders on July 30. Those changes would constitute a radical rewrite of 17 years of legislative and administra­tive history surrounding Title X and could, if promulgated, seriously affect the way the program is run and the women served by family planning clinics nationwide.

As proposed, the regulations would ban the provision of any information even neutral, factual information — related to abortion or abortion serv­ices, in family planning clinics supported in any extent with Title X funds. They also would place a number of restrictions on family planning services providers which would impede their ability to serve their clients. They are designed to do two things: first, to manipulate pregnant women seeking infor­mation from family planning clinics into a particular course of action — car­rying a pregnancy to term — by denying her outright any information on her other legal options; second, to harass family planning providers through the imposition on their Title X projects of time consuming, expensive and in many cases absurd administrative requirements so as to force them into making a stark choice between accepting the government’s mandate that only pre-censored information be given or foregoing federal assistance altogether.

Interested organizations and individuals have 60 days – until November 2, 1987 – to file comments with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). After taking the comments into account, the department intends to issue final regulations within 45 days thereafter.

What is Title X?

Title X of the Public Health Service Act authorizes project grants to public and private nonprofit organizations for the provision of a broad range of family planning services and methods (including natural family planning and infertility services) to all who want and need them, with priority given to low-income persons . By law, no abortions are now or have ever been provided with Title X funds. In addition, Title X provides for a training program for clinic personnel and for limited community-based education activities, and authorizes research in the reproductive sciences and contraceptive develop­ment. Nearly five million women per year receive information and/or medical services through organized family planning clinics, most of which receive Title X funds in addition to other sources of funding, such as Medicaid, state funds and patient fees.

What services are provided under Title X?

Family planning service providers offer basic reproductive health care in their communities. While the range of services can vary among individual clinics, depending on the needs of the communities they serve, core services include contraceptive information and the provision of contraceptive services when requested, gynecological examinations that include basic lab tests and other such basic screening services as testing for high blood pressure and screening for breast and cervical cancer (Pap smears), STD detection, preg­nancy testing, natural family planning, and infertility services. Less frequently, when local needs warrant, family planning clinics also provide outpatient sterilization and prenatal care services.

Why do family planning clinics offer pregnancy tests and related counseling?

Reproductive health care standards, as well as current federal • guidelines, require that a thorough physical examination be performed before appropriate methods of contraception can be prescribed. In some cases, that might require a pregnancy test, since obviously contraception should not be used by someone who is already pregnant. Moreover, many women come to family planning clinics for the first time because they think they might be pregnant. This is especially true of teenagers, most of whom wait for more than a year after they have become sexually active before coming to a family planning clinic. Whether or not a client is pregnant, or is choosing the most appropriate contraceptive, she should be given complete information as to the relative risks, benefits and alternatives available.

Have Title X funds ever been used for abortions or for lobbying?

Family planning clinics have always been prohibited from using Title X funds for abortions or for lobbying purposes. Allegations of noncompliance in these areas by antiabortion activists led to a Congressionally-requested in­vestigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO) as well as a simultaneous examination by the Inspector General of DHHS. Both reported in September 1983 that all Title X clinics studied were operating in full compliance with the law found no evidence that title X funds had been used for abortions or to advise clients to have abortions.” (GAO/HRD-82-106). Subsequently, in tes­timony before the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment in both 1984 and 1985, and again before an appropriations subcommittee in March 1987, DHHS officials including Secretaries Schweiker, Heckler and Bowen specifically reaffirmed that clinics were in full compliance with the prohibition.

Under current Title X regulations, what information do women facing an unin­ tended pregnancy currently receive? How would this change under the proposed regulations?

Current federal guidelines require that women seeking information about their options for handling an unintended pregnancy be given non-directive counseling “on the following alternative courses of action, and referral upon request: prenatal care and delivery; infant care, foster care, or adoption; pregnancy termination.” Coercion of any kind is not only prohibited by law but is counter to the principle of voluntary participation upon which Title X is based. Moreover, professional medical ethics and standards require that patients be counseled and referred to other sources of care of assistance when needed and available. Since pregnancy is a condition that requires medical care, whatever course is chosen, referrals to safe sources of further care should be provided. Failure to make appropriate referrals could, under cer­ tain conditions, provide the basis for malpractice action.

Under the proposed regulations, once a woman has a positive pregnancy test, only one type of information would be offered: a full listing of providers of “appropriate prenatal and delivery services.” All other informa­ tion – even nondirective, factual information – regarding options of handling an unintended pregnancy would be banned. Specifically, no mention of the op­ tion of abortion could be made, which is the major underlying purpose of the new regulations. Thus, a clinic receiving federal family planning funds could not provide a pregnant woman with the name, address or telephone number of a doctor who performs abortions, even upon request. However, because all post­ pregnancy counseling is prohibited, the new rules would also forbid counseling on the option of giving the child up for adoption performed with Title X funds after a client has received the results of a positive pregnancy test. (Counseling on adoption could only be provided in the context of counseling infertile couples trying to become pregnant and have a child.)

Where will women be able to receive complete information on all of their legal medical options for handling an unintended pregnancy? Do women have a right to know this information?

If the proposed regulations take effect in their current form, fewer women will be able to receive complete medical information regarding an unin­tended pregnancy. Family planning clinics would have to decide whether to continue to receive federal funding (in which case they would be precluded from offering full-scale counseling and referrals), or whether to forego federal funds in favor of the continued provision of non-directive counseling and referrals. Clinics in the latter position would face economic hardship of varying degrees; some possibly could close their doors. In either case, there would be even fewer clinics available that provided the full range of informa­tion sought by their clients.

Family planning clients, as do all people receiving health care or coun­seling, have a right to receive complete information in order to make choices about their medical care – the doctrine of informed consent. According to a 1982 report by the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine, “of particular concern in health care contexts is the withholding or distortion of information in order to affect the patient’s beliefs or deci­ sions…. Since the judgment about which choice will best serve well-being properly belongs to the patient, a physician is obliged to mention all alter­ native treatments, including those he or she does not respect or favor…” This doctrine applies to those patients who are low-income as well as to those who can afford private medical care; neither is the right to receive complete information affected by whether or not the government decides to pay for abor­tion procedures.

Current federal guidelines for the Title X family planning program fully comport with the tenets of informed consent, requiring family planning clinics to provide nondirective counseling, and referrals upon request, on all legal medical options for handling an unintended pregnancy. These guidelines are based on standards held by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists which state: “In the event of an unwanted pregnancy, the physician should counsel the patient about her options of continuing the preg­nancy to term and keeping the infant, continuing the pregnancy to term and of­ offering the infant for legal adoption, or aborting the pregnancy.”

Moreover, a close examination of the legislative history of the Title X program and subsequent congressional action indicates that Congress itself never had any intention of restricting pregnancy counseling or abortion refer­ ral services. The conference report for the 1970 bill establishing the original Title X program specifically mentions “other related medical, infor­mational and educational activities,” certainly broad enough language to encompass all counseling and referral activities that are appropriate or required by commonly accepted professional standards. In addition, the conference report language explaining Section 1008 (prohibiting funding for abortions as a method of family planning) is totally devoid of references to or prohibitions on referral and counseling services. Moreover, since 1970, in- numerable attempts to ban the use of federal funds for pregnancy counseling and referrals for abortions have been rejected by Congress.

When they provide pregnancy counseling and referrals, don’t family planning clinics – or, at least, Planned Parenthood clinics – “encourage” abortion?

Family planning clinics have always been prohibited from using Title X funds for abortion. However, under current federal guidelines, nondirective counseling and referrals on all legal medical options for handling an unin­tended pregnancy are specifically required. Repeated audits by federal authorities – requested by antiabortion activists – have shown that no clinics receiving Title X funds to be in violation of federal law. Clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood who receive Title X funds operate in the same manner, and comply with the same rules with regard to counseling and referral services as do other clinics run by state and local health departments, hospitals or other agencies.

Who would be affected by this ban on information?
Both the recipients of family planning services and the providers of those services would be severely affected by the revision of the Title X regulations. For those women seeking counseling and referrals to other medical facilities, the options would be limited solely to a list of prenatal care and delivery services. The options of adoption or abortion could not even be presented using Title X funds, much less referrals given to women seeking those options. Furthermore, since most family planning clinics around the country receive other sources of income in addition to Title X and serve a wide range of women, any woman being served in a facility that receives any Title X funds — even if she is paying the full fee — will be denied informa­tion, not just the low- and marginal-income clients for whom Title X funds are primarily targeted. Moreover, few family planning clients know whether or not the clinic they attend receives federal funds; they would have no way of know­ ing that they were receiving incomplete, pre-censored, government-approved in­ formation.

The providers of family planning services – doctors, nurse­ practitioners, counselors – will also be placed in a difficult position by the proposed regulations. Health care professionals are under ethical medical obligations to provide patients with all relevant information regarding their condition and alternative treatments. For the federal government to unilaterally restrict that information could well subject these providers to the risk of legal action.

Would any new organizations not currently receiving Title X funds be funded under the proposed regulations?

In the preamble to the revised regulations, the assertion is made that they will “insure the ability of otherwise eligible organizations or programs that refuse to engage in abortion-related activities to receive support under Title X.” However, it is unlikely that this promise could be fulfilled under the Title X statute, which requires that a full range of “acceptable and ef­fective family planning methods and services” be provided. Most antiabortion counseling centers do not offer contraceptive services; even under the proposed regulations, they would not be eligible for Title X funds.

How would family planning clinics be affected by a prohibition on the coloca­tion of family planning services and “abortion-related activities?”

The proposed regulations would require that any family planning project receiving federal funds keep its services “financially and physically” dis­ tinct from any “abortion-related activities,” including pregnancy counseling and referral for abortions and any other information on abortion in any form. Separate accounting, personnel and medical records would be required; common waiting and examination rooms would be prohibited, as would shared recep­tionists or telephone numbers; even common street or mailing addresses would not be allowed. The revised rules go much farther than former attempts to separate Title X clinics from facilities that actually provide abortions, ad­ditionally prohibiting even the mention of the word. To comply with the proposed regulations, a family planning clinic would have to contort itself and its legitimate activities not only at its expense, but all of those who receive family planning services.

Under the proposed regulations, could organizations use their own non-public funds to counsel on, refer or advocate for abortion, and still receive Title X funding?

Theoretically, yes. In fact, the preamble to the regulations takes pains to state that they “are not to be construed as restricting or limiting the activities of grantee organizations when such activities are entirely out­ side of, and separate from, a Title X funded program” (emphasis added). This is an attempt to make the regulations appear to comply with recent court rulings that have found it unconstitutional to prohibit a private agency that receives government family planning funding from using its own funds for abortion-related activities. ( Most recently in Babbitt v. Planned Parenthood of Northern and Central Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that the organization’s funding for these activities had been kept separate and strictly accountable, and that the state could not tell the clinic what to do with its private funds.) However, in practice, the contor­tions an organization would have to go through in order to ensure that its Title X-funded activities are “entirely outside of, and separate from,” both “physically and financially,” any “abortion related activities” are so burden­ some and expensive that most providers will be faced with a stark choice: accept the government’s money, along with its mandate that only pre-censored in­formation be given to pregnant clients, or forego government assistance en­tirely.

Prepared by the Washington Office, The Alan Guttmacher Institute

The Arizona Public Health Association opposes the proposed Title X regulations. If put in effect these regulations would deny millions of poor women access to proper medical care through the informed consent process. In addition these proposed regulations interfere with the traditional doctor/patient relationship by preventing the doctor from giving appropriate medical/health information to the patient.

111_1987 title x proposed regulations with questions and answers (1)

1989- Impact of Webster Decision

Arizona Public Health Association Annual Meeting
September 13, 1989

Resolution: Impact of Webster Decision

WHEREAS: The 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision of the United States Supreme Court effectively safeguarded the constitutional liberties and health concerns of pregnant women while recognizing and accommodating the state’s interests in potential human life; and

WHEREAS:the 1989 Webster decision of the United States Supreme Court gave individual states broader range to regulate abortion without regard to a pregnant woman’s health as related to her liberty interest protected by the due process clause of the constitution; and

WHEREAS:there is no such thing as a pregnancy that does not put a woman’s life and health at risk; and

WHEREAS:The American Public Health Association believes that the govern­ ment has no right to dictate to a woman that she must undergo the health risks involved in a pregnancy.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
The Arizona Public Health Association reaffirms the previous pro­ choice stand of the Association and support Legislative and regulatory action which will provide the citizens of Arizona with the continuing alternatives to pregnancy.

Approved by the AZPHA membership at the Fall Meeting, September 1989

113~1989_(1)Impact of webster decision (abortion, reproductive health)

1989- Hazardous Waste Management

89-2

Arizona Public Health Association Annual Meeting
September 13, 1989

Resolution: Hazardous Waste Management

WHEREAS:Prior to the 1984 Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) very few waste products were shipped to Arizona for treatment, recycling, or disposal; and

WHEREAS: states neighboring Arizona have imposed new fees and taxes on the handling of various waste materials and Arizona has failed to do so, leading to the importation of these materials to Arizona; and

WHEREAS: these imported hazardous wastes may have both short and long-term human health impacts; and

WHEREAS: Arizona DEQ recently proposed then withdrew new regulations deal­ ing with the reporting and record keeping at hazardous waste recycling facilities; and ten year old solid waste regulations have not been modified to reflect changes in the 1982 Solid Waste Management Act, or the 1986 Environmental Quality Act.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
The Arizona Public Health Association supports Legislative Action which will:
1. mandate the collection and analysis of information relating to the impact of hazardous waste importation on human health and the environment,
2. require special licensing at recycling facilities that accept hazardous wastes using permit conditions that still protect human health and the environment, but are not as burdensome as the entire RCRA Part B hazardous waste permit conditions,
3. require imported wastes that are “Hazardous to extremely Haz­ ardous” in their state of origin to be handled, treated, or disposed of at facilities in Arizona that meet all of the new permit standards of Arizona’s Environmental Quality Act.

Approved by the AZPHA membership at the Fall Meeting, September, 1989.
Executive Secretary

114~1989_(1)Hazardous waste management (hazardous waste, environement, public safety)

1989- Protecting Confidentiality of AIDS Services

Arizona Public Health Association Annual Meeting
September 13, 1989

Resolution: Protecting Confidentiality of AIDS Services

WHEREAS: Police, firefighters, pre-hospital emergency workers, private medical providers, and others have sought access to health department records on HIV infected individuals; and

WHEREAS: some agencies have proposed or attempted to establish lists of HIV infected individuals; and

WHEREAS: lack of confidentiality discourages individuals at higher risk from participating in testing and intervention programs; and

WHEREAS: the CDC has promulgated universal blood and body fluid precautions and OSHA has developed a confidential process for health worker notification.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
The Arizona Public Health Association supports legislative and regulatory action which will:
1. provide for the strict confidentiality of HIV test results on the part of health departments, hospitals, and other health care institutions,
2. prevent the disclosure to individuals or agencies of any personal identifying information from state and local health department HIV registries.

Approved by the AZPHA membership at the Fall Meeting, September, 1989.

Executive Secretary

115~1989_(1) Protecting confidentiality of aids services (HIV-AIDS, healthcare)

1989- Services to HIV Infected Individuals

89-4
Arizona Public Health Association Annual Meeting
September 13, 1989

Resolution: Services to HIV Infected Individuals

WHEREAS: There is a need for comprehensive HIV/AIDS service delivery systems throughout the state of Arizona; and

WHEREAS:the need encompasses housing and human services, medical care both primary and specialty, psycho-social services and Home Health services; and

WHEREAS: service organizations serving HIV infected individuals are chron­ically overloaded; and

WHEREAS: long term care facilities have not responded to the needs of persons with AIDS.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
The Arizona Public Health Association supports and endorses efforts to:
1. provide financial incentives for the coordination and de­ livery of community services;
2. integrate the care of HIV infected individuals into the main­ stream of the health care delivery system whenever possible;
3. provide specialty based health services to HIV infected individuals responsive to the unique clinical manifestation of the disease;
4. maintain and expand the rights of a HIV infected individuals to choose and plan their own health care.

Approved by the AZPHA membership at the Fall Meeting, September, 1989.

Date Executive Secretary

116~1989_(1) Services to hiv infected individuals (HIV-AIDS, healthcare)

1989- Supporting Voluntary HIV Testing

89-5

Arizona Public Health Association Annual Meeting
September 13, 1989

Resolution: Supporting Voluntary HIV Testing

WHEREAS: The counseling and education which accompany HIV testing present a unique opportunity to affect behavior change; and

WHEREAS: rather than testing there are more appropriate and less costly methods of educating those who are at little or no risk.

WHEREAS: in the past bills have been introduced in the Arizona Legisla­ture which do not have adequate provisions for counseling and education services; and

WHEREAS: testing in the absence of counseling and education hold minimal preventive merits.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
The Arizona Public Health Association supports:
1. voluntary HIV testing accompanied by an adequate standard of counseling and education,
2. statutory/regulatory protection of confidentiality,
3. improved access to free, confidential and anonymous testing services in rural areas of the state and under served urban neighborhoods.

Approved by the AZPHA membership at the Fall Meeting, September, 1989.

Executive Secretary
117~1989_(1) Supporting voluntary HIV testing (HIV-AIDS, healthcare)

1989- Restricting Mandatory HIV Testing

Arizona Public Health Association Annual Meeting
September 13, 1989

Resolution: Restricting Mandatory HIV Testing

WHEREAS: HIV testing is currently mandated for blood and organ donors, federal prisoners, immigration/refugees, military personnel, and inductees; and

WHEREAS: bills before the Arizona legislature during the past two sessions have attempted to extend mandatory testing to populations where the risk has not been documented; and

WHEREAS:the American Medical Association, Centers for Disease Control, and the Surgeon General have expressed opposition to widespread mandatory testing for low risk populations; and

WHEREAS: mandatory testing programs will divert funds from preventive efforts to combat the spread of HIV

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
The Arizona Public Health Association does not support mandatory HIV testing:
1. for any population in Arizona without first determining the prevalence of HIV infection in that population;
2. when state seroprevalence data does not warrant mandatory testing established by national standards;
3. when specific plans and resources for the provision of accompanying counseling and education have not been developed;
4. for those who have been exposed through casual contact;
5. when specific procedures for protecting confidentiality of HIV test results are not in place.

Approved by the AZPHA membership at the Fall Meeting, September, 1989.

Date Executive Secretary

118~1989_(1)Restricting mandatory HIV testing (infectious disease, HIV-AIDS, education, public safety)